In both constructivist and traditional science teaching, there is a body of knowledge which students need to acquire, understand, and retain. The teacher in both cases is guided or constrained by standards which are set down by an external body, to which the teacher is accountable. Both teaching situations call for lesson planning, and appropriate activities, which will enable students to learn what they need to. In both cases, the teacher is usually the most knowledgeable person, and so provides the means by which students can set about learning.
In both traditional and constructivist teaching approaches, teachers need to take into account that there is a wide range of abilities, and provide ways to differentiate so that all learners may be reached. Both are wanting to engage students and gain their attention and involvement in a lesson. Traditional teaching methods would have the teacher as the focus of the lesson, as the one who imparts knowledge. Students may be encouraged to question and debate, which resembles the constructivist approach to some extent. In a science experiment, students may be asked to make predictions about an outcome, and then to test those predictions. This would be similar in a constructivist or traditional classroom. There is also often a recall or review of previously learned concepts when introducing something new, which could take place with either of these approaches.
I think of these two approaches to teaching as being so different, but there are some similarities. Good teachers ultimately have the students' best interests at heart, and want them to learn and understand what they have to teach. I think this would be the same, no matter what method of teaching is used.
